Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

I watched the latest(?) video. And its very weird...I dont understand, he shows a chart of a star going from large to small apparently displaying different temperature scale in color aswell which seems to just loop around :S and in the end makes the claim that stars shrink into planets with water around :S Does he ever explain how that water was made? ) I dont think so..)

__________________L.H 1919 - 1993 R.I.P

Unfortunately the 911truth movement web site does not allow any opinions contrary to their own, or I would have presented my views.David Scott - CTBUH Chairman

The narrator is, I assume, jeffreyw himself. The 'Tuber's username is Jeffrey Wolynski.

Possibly. But unless user jeffreyw definitively states so, I have no way to know whether it is the same user, narrator or proponent.

I could, I suppose, watch other videos on his channel and attempt to figure out if it is him, or just some other bloke he uploaded to his channel by means of voice, accent, colloquialisms, context and so forth, but having sat through 6 minutes and 6 seconds of nonsense, I am disinclined to expend the effort to discover which particular individual is actually speaking. It could be jeffreyw, it could be a vid jefferyw uploaded from some place else. It could be an imposter. It could be anything.

Either way, I will not be burning my bandwidth to view any further yooboob videos posted. I place far more value on retaining my brain cells.

__________________Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?

I used to think that youtube videos were only for people who couldn't obtain information except through a video. That may be true for many, but youtube videos also give an opportunity for the presenter to sell something to the viewer without giving the viewer a chance to carefully think over the proposal without an insistent, often emotional, voice in their ear. A written description of a theory can be read in detail for self consistency, and the reader can stop at any point to check out the truthfulness of the "facts" presented. A video, on the other hand, allows the viewer's perspective to controlled by the presenter, and selling points can be "chatted up" whereas any uncomfortable facts can be hidden or ignored. It is easier to sell snake oil in person than in a written ad.

Rejected. I refuse to follow blind links to YooBoob videos which are proof of nothing. If you have a valid theory to present on a discussion board, then present those notions on said discussion board in YOUR OWN WORDS and discuss them.

In this video I show how Wikipedia editors take away investigative clues which would lead to discovery and insight. This specific case has to deal with the altering of the stellar classification page.

Wikipedia editors are a strange breed. They only allow for articles to be written which either:

A. Support the status quo

B. Is sourced from a status quo source

On one hand they think they are being helpful, but in some cases, they do the most damage. It is like this:

What is worse?

1. Ignorance

2. False knowledge

In this case Wikipedia editors have false knowledge and take away clues of nature in support of the status quo. Yet as I mention in the video, what happens when the star cools to below 2400 Kelvin? Nothing? It explodes? Or is the obvious being presented, the star becomes the hot gas giant.

Thus stars evolve into gas giants (planets), or just "stars age". Or better yet, stellar evolution is the process of planet formation itself.

Should we really be still questioning the obvious or are there people actually going to help with the development of this superior philosophical understanding of the stars? (This theory of course being opposed to big bang creationism and the nebular hypothesis. )

__________________Planets are not formed from disks, that would be in violation of the conservation of angular momentum.

A "planet" is just an ancient star. They were never mutually exclusive.

Should we really be still questioning the obvious or are there people actually going to help with the development of this superior philosophical understanding of the stars? (This theory of course being opposed to big bang creationism and the nebular hypothesis. )

__________________"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov

__________________As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.

In this video I show how Wikipedia editors take away investigative clues which would lead to discovery and insight. This specific case has to deal with the altering of the stellar classification page.

Wikipedia editors are a strange breed. They only allow for articles to be written which either:

A. Support the status quo

B. Is sourced from a status quo source

On one hand they think they are being helpful, but in some cases, they do the most damage. It is like this:

What is worse?

1. Ignorance

2. False knowledge

In this case Wikipedia editors have false knowledge and take away clues of nature in support of the status quo. Yet as I mention in the video, what happens when the star cools to below 2400 Kelvin? Nothing? It explodes? Or is the obvious being presented, the star becomes the hot gas giant.

Thus stars evolve into gas giants (planets), or just "stars age". Or better yet, stellar evolution is the process of planet formation itself.

Should we really be still questioning the obvious or are there people actually going to help with the development of this superior philosophical understanding of the stars? (This theory of course being opposed to big bang creationism and the nebular hypothesis. )

Oh goody. Another pointless yooboob video. I will not watch that. I will recommend that nobody watch it. It will be another waste of time.

And as for Wiki, they have an outright policy of rejecting bunk on the basis that it is bunk. Do you have a problem with Wiki rejecting bunk?

__________________Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?

I used to think that youtube videos were only for people who couldn't obtain information except through a video. That may be true for many, but youtube videos also give an opportunity for the presenter to sell something to the viewer without giving the viewer a chance to carefully think over the proposal without an insistent, often emotional, voice in their ear. A written description of a theory can be read in detail for self consistency, and the reader can stop at any point to check out the truthfulness of the "facts" presented. A video, on the other hand, allows the viewer's perspective to controlled by the presenter, and selling points can be "chatted up" whereas any uncomfortable facts can be hidden or ignored. It is easier to sell snake oil in person than in a written ad.

Jeffrey's whole strategy here of serial posting of his YouBoob videos while avoiding actually addressing anyone's questions about his "theory" seems a little gutless for a supposed ex-Marine; it's essentially an extended Gish Gallop without even the risk of reply.

__________________I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

We should all read Martin Gardner’s ‘Science, Good, Bad and Bogus’, “today black holes are the fashionable playthings of ‘clever’ astrophysicists. Tomorrow their models may collapse to take their place alongside Phlogiston and the epicycles of Ptolemy”.

Not only that, but the words can be replaced with the phrasing left in tact.

"today stellar evolution models are the fashionable playthings of 'clever' astrophysicists. Tomorrow their models may collapse to take their place alongside Phlogiston and the epicycles of Ptolemy”.

It is already "tomorrow". The stellar evolution models and nebular hypothesis have already collapsed. The only things that prop them up are the continued compartmentalization of science along with massive group think, and the notion that "experts can't be wrong because it is what they get paid to do".

Surely those "experts" can build the ships that never sink? Like the Titanic?

__________________Planets are not formed from disks, that would be in violation of the conservation of angular momentum.

A "planet" is just an ancient star. They were never mutually exclusive.

Since the nebular hypothesis and 1950's stellar evolution models are obsolete, it is required to place appropriately stars in all stages of evolution.

Here I make a video which outlines where Epsilon Eridani fits and reasoning why it fits where it does, why it is the size it is, and what its future/past will be. This meaning the predictive power of stellar metamorphosis is superior to the nebular hypothesis and fusion models (which are outdated and can be ignored).

This is just an extensive advertising campaign by jeffreyw to increase the web visibility of his videos. He has as much as stated so in his posts. He does not respond to criticisms because that is not the goal of his posts. The goal is web links, and a odd belief (posted by jeffreyw more than once) that the more opposition to his theories from people who do know what they are talking about, the more proof that his theories are correct. The "They laughed at Einstein..." concept.

The problem in advertising this way on this Forum is that it also makes equally visible the many posts that dismiss his theory and that demonstrate its absurdity with facts.

Wow, jeffreyw - the fantasy that creationists are not capable of telling lies about Neptune and Uranus.
Here are some idiots stating that gas giants cannot exist when they do and their existence is explained in astrophysics. Then there is exposure of your ignorance of astrophysics by parroting their ignorance, jeffreyw: "According to planet formation models of establishment science Neptune and Uranus do not exist." is a lie.

We should all know (unlike jeffreyw) that Martin Gardner was not an astronomer and his opinion was as a mathematician.
We all know the ignorance in citing a popular science book written in 1989 (26 years ago) due to the fact that science progresses! In 1989 there could be an excuse from not knowing about the evidence for black holes. Today there is little excuse.

Since the nebular hypothesis and 1950's stellar evolution models are obsolete, it is required to place appropriately stars in all stages of evolution.

Since that is a lie about the nebular hypothesis being obsolete and a fantasy about stellar evolution models stopping in the 1950's, jeffreyw, we do not really have to view a crank video about Epsilon Eridani!

Since that is a lie about the nebular hypothesis being obsolete and a fantasy about stellar evolution models stopping in the 1950's, jeffreyw, we do not really have to view a crank video about Epsilon Eridani!

Reads out the scientific definition oaf a K-Type main-sequence star and tells people to ignore much of it!

Repeat of the fantasy that planets are old stars.

I really think you are wasting your time, and I think any lurkers following along in this thread have seen the true nature of the theory he has proposed. Shame really, I enjoy a good astronomy based discussion

I do know that I am wasting my time trying to educate jeffreyw since his track record on other places is basically advertising his crank videos without trying to address the ignorance shown in them. The main purpose of pointing out the ignorance is that anyone who finds his videos will probably find this forum also and so be informed about how bad they are.

Stellar metamorphosis is a fringe hypothesis for star evolution. It is a crank theory that purports to explain what happens as a star cools and combines its elements into molecular compounds. It holds that the root assumption of astrophysics, namely, that stars and planets are mutually exclusive, is incorrect. Stellar metamorphosis holds that stars and planets are the same objects only in different stages of evolution. Therefore planet formation is stellar evolution itself as they are the exact same process.

Jeffrey J. Wolynski is an obscure, scarcely known physics crank. Despite his exaggerated claims, he's virtually unknown to mainstream physics, and the only people who take him seriously are other wannabe physicists, conspiracy theorists, UFO nuts, Nibiru believers, Electric Universe and the alternative energy proponents.

In this video I overview where red dwarfs sit in modern stellar evolution models, not the models of the 1950's where stars are proposed as unreal nuclear reactors, but as massive electrochemical/thermochemical events.

The energy needed to undergo the exothermic reactions is provided largely by pre-existing heat from initial formation, as well as gravitational potential energy. Those who understand chemistry it should be made apparent that non-spontaneous reactions required to form large amounts of molecules was present when the Earth was a much younger star.

This meaning of course Earth itself experienced many earlier stages of star evolution, and actually existed for very long periods of time as a plasmatic/gaseous object, outside the bounds of current geophysical sciences.

This also meaning that geophysics is officially tied intimately to astrophysics, as Earth itself is a star at the very end of its life, not given life as a metabolic process but of a life hosting star, or a star which possesses a magnetic field (signaling internal movement).

__________________Planets are not formed from disks, that would be in violation of the conservation of angular momentum.

A "planet" is just an ancient star. They were never mutually exclusive.

Again, it is all advertising to increase the visibility of his videos, under the assumption that there is no such thing as "bad" publicity. Are people allowed to advertise here in such a blatant way even if they are not making money directly from a product?

In this video I overview where red dwarfs sit in modern stellar evolution models, not the models of the 1950's where stars are proposed as unreal nuclear reactors, but as massive electrochemical/thermochemical events. ...snipped more gibberish...

Oh dear - the ignorance in "unreal nuclear reactors", jeffreyw, should be obvious to you ! Nuclear reactors are fission devices. Stars are powered by fusion. There is nothing "unreal" about fusion. That is how hydrogen bombs work. There are devices no that do fusion (just not sustained long enough yet for practical power generation).

One more time with the delusion that solar physics stopped in the 1950's!

More ignorance - that stars could be powered by "electrochemical/thermochemical" means was disposed of over a century ago by actual calculations of how long actual burning of material or release of gravitational potential energy could keep the Sun alive - the maximum was 100 million years. Also see ENERGY SOURCES FOR STARS

And even more ignorance - that there are "modern stellar evolution models" that have "electrochemical/thermochemical" stars. Modern stellar evolution models use the observations of real stars to show that they are powered by fusion.

Again, it is all advertising to increase the visibility of his videos, under the assumption that there is no such thing as "bad" publicity. Are people allowed to advertise here in such a blatant way even if they are not making money directly from a product?

Since this is a forum for discussion- something Jeffrey seems to be deliberately avoiding- I would say his posts are coming pretty close to the definition of "spamming." Of course, if he's penalized in any way for it, he will see that as persecution and censorship, and, by his reasoning, more evidence that he's right.

Not that it matters- cranks are gonna crank, it's just what they do.

__________________I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

I have yet to receive any emails concerning help with the development of this incredible discovery.

Let's play an imagination game, Jeffrey.

Imagine, hypothetically, that a ill-informed amateur scientist---let's call him Bob---made what he thinks is an incredible discovery. Suppose that this idea is, in actual truth, a gigantic stupid mistake. Suppose that Bob posts his idea on the Internet.

a) What sort of replies will people make to Bob's Internet posts?
b) Will Bob receive emails offering to "help" with the "development"?

Bob notices that his theory is still unpopular. What does he do next?

Suppose (still with me?) that Bob blames the theory's unpopularity on everyone else. Everyone is stupid and blinker-wearing and there's a conspiracy, he thinks, so he continues posting his giant-mistake and getting angrier and angrier. Is that a good outcome for Bob? Did Bob's stubbornness help the world in any way?

Contrariwise, suppose (hope this isn't too confusing) that Bob listens to criticism, studies more carefully, and understands the mistakes people pointed out in his theory. He starts over and does something useful instead---maybe learning physics and writing better theories, but maybe some painting or sports or childcare or something different. Is that a good outcome for Bob? Did Bob's lack of stubbornness help the world in any way?

Jeffrey Wolynski has a wiki page that describes the fantasy clearly without people wasting their time looking at his YouTube videos.
For example "the Earth itself is a black dwarf star" is a totally ignorant assertion:
* Black dwarf stars would be made of electron-degenerate matter. The Earth is mad up of mostly rock !
* Black dwarf stars would have masses of white dwarf stars. The estimated masses of known white dwarf stars are between 0.17 and 1.33 solar masses. This is at least 56,610 Earth masses !

Imagine, hypothetically, that a ill-informed amateur scientist---let's call him Bob---made what he thinks is an incredible discovery. Suppose that this idea is, in actual truth, a gigantic stupid mistake. Suppose that Bob posts his idea on the Internet.

a) What sort of replies will people make to Bob's Internet posts?
b) Will Bob receive emails offering to "help" with the "development"?

Bob notices that his theory is still unpopular. What does he do next?

Suppose (still with me?) that Bob blames the theory's unpopularity on everyone else. Everyone is stupid and blinker-wearing and there's a conspiracy, he thinks, so he continues posting his giant-mistake and getting angrier and angrier. Is that a good outcome for Bob? Did Bob's stubbornness help the world in any way?

Contrariwise, suppose (hope this isn't too confusing) that Bob listens to criticism, studies more carefully, and understands the mistakes people pointed out in his theory. He starts over and does something useful instead---maybe learning physics and writing better theories, but maybe some painting or sports or childcare or something different. Is that a good outcome for Bob? Did Bob's lack of stubbornness help the world in any way?

We are all Bob.

__________________"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.